T. NK. Singh, J.

1. These two writ petitions, i.e., WP (C) No. 335 of 2002 and WP (C) No. 336 of 2002 involving the similar question of facts and law were taken up for joint hearing and disposal by a common judgment and order. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.

2. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Also heard Mr. B.R. Bhattcharjee and Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsels, assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank.

3. The petitioners, by these writ petitions, are praying for fitment of their pay at par with their juniors, i.e., proforma-respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in WP (C) No. 335 of 2002 by applying the principle of stepping up of pay with effect from 1.1.1989 with reference to the fitment given to their juniors, i.e., proforma-respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Similar writ petitions, i.e., C.R. No. 259 of 1992, C.R. No. 260 of 1992 and CR. No. 261 of 1992 were also filed by the employees of the Tripura Gramin Bank for fitment of their pay at par with their juniors by applying the principle of stepping up of pay.

4. Those writ petitions, i.e., C.R. No. 259 of 1992, C.R. No. 260 of 1992 and C.R. No. 261 of 1992 were allowed by a common judgment and order dated 29.8.2002 passed by the learned single Judge directing the respondents-Bank to step up the pay of the petitioners at par wit their juniors w.e.f. 1.1.1989 by applying the principle of stepping up of pay. The operative portion of the said judgment and order dated 29.8.2002 reads as follows :

12. Now, coming to the case of the petitioners Bibhas Dhar and Nepal Das, we find that the two petitioners were appointed as Field Supervisors as a result of direct recruitment in the year 1983 and 1980 respectively, whereas, the respondent Sishu Ranjan Das was appointed as Senior Clerk in the year 1984. The post of Senior Clerk is below the post of Field Supervisor and admittedly the respondent Sishu Ranjan had joined the Bank after the two petitioners. The respondents have tried to submit that the two petitioners were direct recruit to the post of Field Supervisor, whereas the respondent Sishu Ranjan Das was promoted to the post of Field Supervisor on 22.12.1983 and hence this being the case of 'Promotee' and 'Direct Recruit; they cannot be treated equally. I find in force in the above submission as because we find that the two writ petitioners who had joined the Bank in the year 1980 and 1983 itself in a higher post and were getting higher salary than the respondent Sishu Ranjan Das, who joined the bank after them and that too in a lower post and promoted subsequently to the post in which the two petitioners were appointed. This is not a case where the two petitioners were appointed to the post of direct recruitment and the respondent who was serving the bank long before the petitioners joined the Bank in a junior post, was promoted and because of the length of service his pay was higher than the respondents. The total period of service of the two petitioners was more than that of the respondent Sishu Ranjan Das but still their pay was fixed at a lower slab than that of the respondent Sishu Ranjan Das.

13. So far the petitioner Subhas Ch. Singha Samanta is concerned, he had joined the bank as Jr. Clerk on 22.9.1979 prior to Swapan Adhikari who was appointed in the similar post on 19.9.1980 i.e., about one year after the petitioners were appointed in the Bank the petitioner was promoted as Field Supervisor on 1.1.1983, whereas Swapan Adhikari was promoted as Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier on 15.7.1984 and he was promoted as Field Supervisors on 1.1.1989. However, the pay scale of Swapan Adhkari was fixed at Rs. 2560/- on 1.1.1989 but the petitioner was to get Rs. 2340/- as on same date. Swapan Adhikari was junior to the petitioner in the Grade of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier and also in the Grade of Field Supervisor, but still his pay was